MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042932386 · doi:10.1615/atomizspr.v17.i6.20

ON THE SHEET BREAKUP OF DIRECT-INJECTION GASOLINE PRESSURE-SWIRL ATOMIZER SPRAYS

2007· article· en· W2042932386 on OpenAlexaff
Paul W. Loustalan, Martin Davy

Bibliographic record

VenueAtomization and Sprays · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakupNozzleMechanicsMaterials scienceGasolineInjectorInstabilityThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental study into the sheet breakup mechanisms of two direct-injection gasoline pressure-swirl atomizers has been performed under conditions of varying fuel pressure and injector back pressure. A novel method of illumination, which allows a single thickness of the hollow-cone spray to be examined, has been developed. The results of the study indicate that there are three major mechanisms contributing to the ultimate disintegration of the liquid sheet, namely, aerodynamic instability, perforated sheet breakup, and air-core induced disturbances. The relative importance of the breakup mechanisms is shown to depend on atomizer operating condition and nozzle geometry. Sheet breakup lengths determined experimentally by a void-fraction analysis were compared with the predictions of three breakup models from the literature. The comparison suggests that the models underpredict the breakup length under all but substantially subatmospheric back-pressure conditions. The results also indicate that special care is required when using existing breakup models where atomizers with offset-nozzle geometries are used.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtomization and SpraysSame topicFluid Dynamics and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207